WSP Ecology supports the…

WSP Ecology supports the initiative to revise the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) and appreciate the effort that has been expended; however, we recommend that a more transparent and thorough OWES review process be completed prior to posting on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO).

The key areas where we request additional clarification are the following:

1) the process leading to the revised OWES
2) clear rationale for each of the proposed changes
3) the removal of Provincial oversight and administration of the OWES process and the capability of municipalities to effectively take on a review and approval role in a timely manner
4) removal of wetland complexes
5) removal of references to other existing natural heritage policies (e.g., PPS)

Each of these five areas are expanded upon below, including our recommendation for each point.

1. OWES Revision Process

Although there are two somewhat ambiguous intent statements on ERO 019-6160 regarding clarity of assessment / identification and streamlining of development decisions, it is unclear how those objectives were set and how they are to be achieved with the proposed changes. Further, there is a lack of transparency with respect to the process leading the proposed changes, namely the credentials of those who completed the revisions.

Recommendation 1: Form a committee to review the current OWES manual, consisting of experts and interested stakeholders; update and revise the manual, then post for input on ERO. Other proposed changes included in Bill 23 should be considered in an integrated manner as input to the updated OWES.

2. Rationale & Objectives

Aside from the intent statements listed on ERO 019-6160, there is no rationale provided for the changes in the manual. ERO 019-6160 notes that “The OWES has been in place since 1983. Over the last decade in particular, we have heard practitioners voice concerns and recommendations for improvements to how Ontario’s significant wetlands are assessed and identified.” Those specific concerns and recommendations and how they informed the proposed changes in the OWES manual have not been provided.

Recommendation 2: Through the process recommended in Recommendation 1, provide clear rationale for each proposed change to the OWES manual.

3. Lack of Provincial Oversight & Administration

Currently, OWES is a province-wide system administered by a Provincial ministry. As such, wetlands are considered at a watershed- or natural heritage system level with the intent that they are assessed consistently across Ontario. With the proposed changes, it appears that there will be no Provincial oversight or administration of the OWES at a process or technical level. Rather, it appears that municipalities will be responsible for reviewing and approving OWES evaluations as the bodies that ‘generally implement Ontario’s planning process’ (per p.3, paragraph 4 of the revised manual).
This could create potential concerns with:

1) potential lack of consistency in review / approvals across the province based on local municipality objectives and expertise
2) removal of technical oversight which is currently undertaken by the MNRF’s Wetland Evaluation Technical Team (WETT)
3) uncertainty with respect to housing of wetland evaluations and ability for practitioners to access those data
4) uncertainty regarding future updates to OWES and the manual
5) process for municipalities to review evaluations
6) capability of municipalities to review evaluations (e.g., staff capacity and/or technical expertise)
7) objectives and priorities of municipalities

While we recognize that there have been inconsistencies with how MNRF districts, regions and staff interpret and apply OWES, full removal of provincial oversight will only serve to increase the potential for inconsistent approaches by municipalities.

Recommendation 3: Establish a provincial body to provide technical oversight and review of OWES evaluations (e.g., WETT or analogous group) and ensure consistency within MNRF, and provide clarity regarding the future housing, administration and control of OWES data.

4. Wetland Complexes

The concept of wetland complexes as functionally connected features whereby individual wetland areas contribute to the overall significance, function and quality of the complex is based on ecological theory. With proposed changes, references to ‘wetland complexes’ have been deleted and wetland complexes are no longer considered.

Recommendation 4: Provide more clarification on how the decision was made to remove wetland complexes completely rather than improve/clarify the criteria for wetland complexing.

5. Removal of Other Policy References

References to other legislation have been removed, specifically the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Planning Act and Conservation Authorities Act (p. 4/5, Sections 1-4). No rationale is provided for this deletion.

Recommendation 5: Continue to reference related policy, where applicable (e.g., PPS, Planning Act, Conservation Authorities Act).